It's clear from reading posts on this subject over the years that there's a difference between what the rules require and personal definitions for "assisted" and "single-op". The rules for single-op
Bob, I'm glad you asked us for input on this subject. Although I've commented on the continent points rule and the definition of Single-Op Unassisted, I haven't commented on the use of real time scor
Dave, I've seen the Array Solutions verticals at NT1Y. The aluminum tube elements are very heavy duty. I don't recall the diameter at the base, but they must be on the order of 4"-6". In any case, th
I was pleasantly surprised to receive my 2006 WPX CW USA SOAB plaque today, less than two months after results were published in CQ. Can't ask for faster response than that! It's my first single-op p
Yes, and the mult total is exactly the same, too. Amazing. 73, Dick WC1M _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/
Once you get proficient at SO2R, it's not all that difficult to work the S&P rig even when the rate is 100/hr on the run rig. But it gets more difficult above that level. When I'm in the groove I can
The posted log shows QSO times only to the nearest minute. You can't use that to determine whether there were two signals transmitted simultaneously. It's quite easy to work two stations in the same
I don't want to give cheaters any ideas, but it seems to me it's not difficult for a single-op entrant to cheat with packet in such a way that it can't be detected. Sure, if you jump from frequency t
A good point, Joe. I was intrigued that the DXCC blog specifically states that if they can be sure published logs can't be changed, then it actually would be better to publish them. I think this sugg
I've been watching this thread for several days and keep thinking, "What would WPX be like with a 30-hour limit?" I didn't start serious contesting until after the move to 36 hours, so I don't know.
I'm not entering the debate (yet). I just have a minor question: Is Skimmer smart enough to distinguish between an operator who is CQing and the stations being worked? In other words, does it display
been possible. Why bother with submitting and checking logs? We'll have SCLoTW: "Skimmer Contest Log of the World". One gigantic log of all the QSOs that took place during the weekend. No rubber-clo
OK, as long as you promise not to laugh at how bad my CW is when I send with the paddle at 3:00 AM local... 73, Dick WC1M _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Co
Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it isn't appropriate now. Rather than basing category decisions on names ("assistance", "technology", etc.), or how the variations are implemented
My response to W4TV: I don't think so. It was obvious that using packet is fundamentally different than not using packet. I think a lot of people feel that way about Skimmer, too. Well, CQ WPX has th
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but there's nothing like a better antenna. Seriously, nothing is being punished. I'm sure Skimmer will be available in all categories that permit packet, at the very least.
I can see we're getting near the end of this thread. You say Black, I say White. You say we should only consider the number of ops, I say we should consider the whole picture. I don't think either on
This part of the Skimmer debate is of great interest to me. As the rules are currently written, all transmitting and receiving equipment must be inside the magic circle. Presumably, this refers to eq
I'm referring to the ARRL rules for HF Contesting. The relevant rule is: "2.1.1.Use of spotting assistance or nets (operating arrangements involving other individuals, DX-alerting nets, packet, Inter
I don't want to get too deeply into any more Skimmer conversations on this reflector because I've already gotten in too deep! I'll just say I don't disagree about the intent of the rule, and I can se